text:
The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and location noted below to consider amendments to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
DATE: October 25, 2001
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
Board Room, 3rd Floor
24580 Silver Cloud Court
Monterey, CA 93940
This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of the ARB, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., October 25, 2001, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., October 26, 2001. This item may not be considered until October 26, 2001. Please consult the agenda for the meeting, which will be available at least 10 days before October 25, 2001, to determine the day on which this item will be considered.
This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. If accommodation is needed, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594, or Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) (916) 324-9531 or (800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area, by October 10, 2001, to ensure accommodation.
Sections Affected: Amendments to sections 90700, 90701, 90702, 90703, 90704 and 90705, title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR) (The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation).
The objective of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation (Fee Regulation) is to recover the State's costs and, where necessary, assist the local air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts) in recovering the costs of implementing and administering the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act. The fees assessed through this regulation are used to inventory air toxics emissions, prioritize facilities, prepare risk assessments, review risk assessments, notify the public of potential health risks from exposure to the emissions, and provide guidance to the
facilities for reducing the potential risk from exposure to the emissions. The regulation specifically allocates the State's costs among the districts, and for 2001-2002, establishes facility fees for the five districts that have requested the ARB to adopt their facility fee schedules.
The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (the Act) (Health and Safety Code (H&SC) sections 44300 et seq.) established a program to compile an inventory of air toxics emissions from facilities in California and to assess the potential risks to public health as a result of exposure to those emissions. The Act also requires that the public be notified of facilities whose emissions pose potentially significant health risks. High-risk facilities must reduce their toxic emissions below the level of significance within five years pursuant to H&SC section 44391(a). The Act specifies activities that the ARB, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the districts must carry out to implement the Act. The Act authorizes the ARB to adopt a fee regulation to ensure that costs incurred by the state and, upon request, districts to implement and administer the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program (Program) are recovered by assessing fees on facilities subject to the requirements of the Act (H&SC section 44380).
The Board adopted the first Fee Regulation in 1988. Each year thereafter, the ARB staff, in consultation with the Fee Regulation Committee (which is comprised of representatives of the ARB, the districts, and OEHHA) reviewed the Fee Regulation and proposed amendments for the ARBs consideration. The Fees are collected annually to partially offset the states cost for implementing the Program. For each of the last eight years, the revenues from the states portion of the Fees have decreased. The proposed amendments for fiscal year 2002-2003 will continue that trend. The fees for each fee category have remained stable over the last few years and the staff does not anticipate any need for changing the way the fees are calculated or collected. While fee rates have remained stable, the amount of fees paid by facilities has decreased as facilities reduce toxic emissions and drop into lower fee categories.
Districts may recover their Program costs by adopting their own fee rules or by requesting the ARB to adopt fee regulations for them. If a district requests the ARB to adopt its fee regulation, it must submit its Program costs, approved by its district governing board, to the ARB by April 1, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the fees are to apply. Five districts requested that the ARB adopt their facility fee regulations and submitted district board approved costs for fiscal year 2001-2002 by the April 1, 2001 deadline.
The proposed regulation also contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In accordance with Government Code sections 11345.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the ARBs Executive Officer has found that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the regulation are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State.
Comparable Federal Regulations
The Act established an air quality program unique to the State of California. No equivalent federal requirement at this time targets toxics "Hot Spots" facilities. Accordingly, there is no conflict or duplication between this Fee Regulation and current federal regulations.
The staff proposes amendments to the Fee Regulation which will recover approximately $900,000 in state costs to implement the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program in fiscal year 2001-2002. This represents more than an 80 percent reduction from fiscal year 1993-1994 in state revenues to implement and administer the program. This is a direct result of legislative changes to the Program, as well as changes that have streamlined the Program. The proposed amendments are summarized below.
Adoption of New Fee Schedules for Fiscal Year 2001-2002
The state portion of the fees has been revised to reflect the changes in the number of facilities per fee category in each district based on the current status of facility risk. This revision results in a decrease of $180,000 in fees that will be collected for fiscal year 2001-2002 from last year. Fee Schedules for five districts that have requested the ARB to include recovery of their district Program costs in the Fee Regulation were updated for fiscal year 2001-2002. These five districts are the Antelope Valley, Great Basin Unified, Lassen County, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (AQMD).
Delegation of Annual Update of the Fee Regulation to ARB Executive Officer
The staff is proposing that the Board delegate authority for the administration of the annual Air Toxics Hot Spots fee program to the Executive Officer of the ARB. This will convert the update of the annual State Program costs and collection of the fees into an annual administrative process beginning in fiscal year 2002-2003. The fees assessed in future years will use the current method of calculating the fees. This proposal will streamline the annual fee update and collection process, provide districts and facilities more time to collect, review, and update the toxic emission data used to estimate the fees, and allow more flexibility in administering the program. This will allow the staff to reduce the amount of resources needed to administer the fee program and to devote more resources towards the actual goals of the "Hot Spots" program. These goals include identifying the sources of toxic air pollution emissions in California and gaining a better understanding of the risks posed by toxic air pollutants. Information on the assessment, collection and use of the fees will still be available to the public via an annual status report on the fee program.
New Option for Recovery of District Program Costs
A new method for recovering district program costs is being proposed for districts that do not adopt local Hot Spots fee regulations beginning in fiscal year 2002-2003. This proposed amendment will authorize such districts to recover district program costs up to, but not to exceed, the State Program cost on a per-facility basis, from facilities that are subject to the State Fee Regulation. An accounting of the district Program costs for districts using this provision will be included in the annual status report on the fee regulation.
The ARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory action, which includes a summary of the potential environmental and economic impacts of the proposal, and supporting technical documentation. The staff report is entitled: "Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking for the Amendments to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002".
Copies of the ISOR and full text of the proposed regulatory language, in underline and strike-out format to allow for comparison with the existing regulations, may be obtained from the ARBs Public Information Office, Environmental Services Center, 1001 "I" Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 322-2990, at least 45 days prior to the scheduled hearing (October 25, 2001).
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reason (FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on the web site listed below.
Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulations may be directed to the designated agency contact persons, Randy Pasek, Chief, Emission Inventory Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, at (916) 323-8398 or Chris Halm, Air Pollution Specialist, Planning and Technical Support Division at (916) 323-8372.
Further, the agency representative and designated back-up contact persons to whom nonsubstantive inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed are Artavia Edwards, Manager, Board Administration & Regulatory Coordination Unit, (916) 322-6070, or Amy Whiting, Regulations Coordinator, (916) 322-6533. The Board has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact persons.
If you are a person with a disability and desire to obtain this document in an alternative format, please contact the Air Resources Board ADA Coordinator at (916) 323-4916, or TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area.
This notice, the ISOR, and all subsequent regulatory documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on the ARB Internet site for this rulemaking at /regact/hotspots/01-02/01-02.htm.
The Executive Officer has determined that the amended Fee Regulation will impose a mandate upon and create costs to the districts with jurisdiction over facilities subject to the Act. However, the mandate does not require state reimbursement to the districts pursuant to Government Code sections 17500 et seq., and section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the districts have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for the mandated Program (H&SC section 44380). These fees are intended to recover the costs of district implementation of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, including compliance with the amended Fee Regulation. The cost to the districts to implement the amended Fee Regulation is approximately 10 percent of the districts total Program costs. For fiscal year 2001-2002, the total district Program costs are estimated to be $2,700,000. Therefore, the costs to the districts to implement the amended Fee Regulation are approximately $270,000.
The Executive Officer has determined that adoption of the proposed amendments to the Fee Regulation will impose a mandate upon and create costs to some publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). POTWs are subject to the Fee Regulation if they emit or use substances listed in Appendix A of the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report (title 17, CCR, section 93300.5), release the specified quantity of at least one of the four specified criteria pollutants, or are classified by the district in one of the prescribed Program categories. The costs of complying with the Fee Regulation are not reimbursable within the meaning of section 6, article XIIIB, California Constitution and Government Code sections 17500 et seq., because POTWs are authorized to levy service charges to cover the costs associated with the mandated Program. The ARB staff estimates the total cost for POTWs to comply with the Fee Regulation to be $19,287 for fiscal year 2001-2002.
The Executive Officer has also made an initial determination that the proposed amendments to the Fee Regulation will not create costs or savings in federal funding to any state agency or program, or impose other non-discretionary costs or savings on local agencies.
The Executive Officer has also determined that the amended Fee Regulation will impose costs on affected state agencies. The costs to the ARB to implement and administer the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, including the amended Fee Regulation, will be recovered by fees authorized by H&SC section 44380 and sections 90700-90705 of title 17, CCR.
Other affected state agencies (e.g., universities, hospitals, correctional institutions, and laboratories) that must pay fees pursuant to the amended Fee Regulation as emitters of specified pollutants should be able to absorb their costs within existing budgets and resources. Costs to these state agencies were estimated to total $20,127 for fiscal year 2001-2002.
In developing the proposal, the staff has determined there is a potential cost impact on representative private persons or businesses directly affected by the regulation. The economic impact the Program fees have on individual facilities is related to the facility's prioritization score or the results of a health risk assessment. Program fees for those districts the state is adopting a fee schedule for, range from $35 to $15,715. The fees for specific facility program categories for those districts for which the state is adopting fee schedules can be found in Table 3 of Appendix I of the Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed amendments to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation for fiscal year 2001-2002.
The Executive Officer has also made an initial determination that amendments to this regulation may have a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.
All businesses that emit a criteria pollutant and a listed substance (H&SC sections 44320-44322; title 17, CCR, section 90702) must pay a "Hot Spots" fee, (H&SC sections 44380-44382; title 17, CCR, sections 90703-90705) unless specified conditions have been met, and will be affected by these proposed amendments. The amended fees would have little or no impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This is because the amended fees do not impose a noticeable impact on the profitability of California businesses. However, the amended fees may have an adverse impact on the ability of some California businesses operating with little or no margin of profitability. Appendix VII of the Staff Report includes a list of the categories of businesses that may be included in the scope of this regulation.
To comply with these proposed amendments, businesses will have to pay the fees assessed on them. These proposed amendments will not result in any additional reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements, beyond keeping records of payment.
The staff concludes that, overall, California businesses seem to be able to absorb the costs of the fees without significant adverse economic impact on their profitability. Although some businesses would potentially experience a greater reduction in their profitability than others, most businesses appear to be able to absorb the fee. However, the imposition of the amended fees may have a significant adverse impact on some businesses operating with little or no margin of profitability. The ARB has considered proposed alternatives that would lessen any adverse economic impact on businesses and invites you to submit proposals. Submissions may include the following considerations:
(i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables which take into account the resources available to businesses.
(ii) Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses.
(iii) The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards.
(iv) Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for businesses.
Submissions may also include the following considerations which more closely apply to these amendments:
(v) The establishment of differing payment requirements or timetables which take into account the resources available to businesses.
(vi) Exemption or partial exemption from the fee requirements for businesses.
(vii) Any other alternative that would lessen any adverse impact the fees may have on businesses.
The Executive Officer has also made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory action may affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the state of California, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.
Finally, the Executive Officer has also determined that the regulation will affect small business. In an effort to reduce those potential impacts on small businesses, the ARB staff has placed a cap of $300 for those facilities that fit the definition of small business in the Fee Regulation. Facilities that fit the definition of industrywide facilities found in H&SC section 44323 would be assessed an annual state portion of fees of $35 under the proposed amendments.
Before taking final action on the proposed amendments to the regulations, the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. The imposition of the fees and the requirement that the fees, in the aggregate, cover costs of implementing the Program, are mandated by statute. However, the Fee Regulation includes a cap on fees for small businesses. Additionally, existing exemptions will continue to relieve lower-risk facilities from paying any fee. These provisions are meant to minimize the burden of the regulation.
The public may present comments relating to this matter orally or in writing at the hearing, and in writing, or by e-mail before the hearing. To be considered by the Board, written submissions not physically submitted at the hearing must be received by no later than 12:00 noon October 24, 2001, and addressed to the following:
Postal Mail is to be sent to:
Clerk of the Board
Air Resources Board
1001 "I" Street, 23rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Electronic mail is to be sent to: email@example.com and received at the ARB by no later than 12:00 noon October 24, 2001.
Facsimile submissions are to be transmitted to the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-3928 and received at the ARB no later than 12:00 noon, October 24, 2001.
The Board requests, but does not require, 30 copies of any written statement be submitted and that all written statements be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing so that ARB staff and Board Members have time to fully consider each comment. The ARB encourages members of the public to bring any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing.
Amendments to the Fee Regulation are proposed under the authority granted to ARB in H&SC sections 39600, 39601, 44321, 44344.4, 44344.7, 44380, and 44380.5. The purpose of the Fee Regulation is to implement, interpret, and make specific sections 44320, 44321, 44322, 44344.4, 44344.7, 44361, 44380, and 44380.5 of the H&SC.
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act, title 2, division 3, part 1, chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340) of the Government Code.
Following the public hearing, the ARB may adopt the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with non-substantive or grammatical modifications. The ARB may also adopt the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text, as modified, is sufficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice that the regulatory language, as modified, could result from the proposed regulatory action. Such modifications are expected to include but are not limited to the following:
In the event that such modifications are made, the full regulatory text with the modifications clearly indicated will be made available to the public for written comment at least 15 days before it is adopted. The public may request a copy of the modified regulatory text from the Air Resources Board Public Information Office, 1001 "I" Street, Environmental Services Center, 1st Floor, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 322-2990.
Date: August 28, 2001
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at www.arb.ca.gov.
Return to Regulatory Documents Page


text:
ProQuip Pro-Flex EVO Quilted Windproofview other products
Quilted tops are very fashionable at the moment and this one is designed especially for golf, with stretch fabrics and hidden inner pockets for your scorecard.
Both this jacket and gilet feature quilted panels with a Thinsulate lining, which help block out wind and lock in heat for exceptional warmth without being too heavy or bulky.
Key features and benefits:
- Quilted panels with Thinsulate lining for lightweight warmth
- Knitted stretch fabric aids complete freedom of movement
- Micro-fleece collar for added warmth
- Concealed inner pocket for storing scorecard or valuables
- Available in both a jacket and gilet
Available in two colours and sizes from S-XXL, both these options are worth considering and trying on for size if you need a new winter layer.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Testimony of
Leonard A. Leo
Before the
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC)
Implications of the Promotion of "Defamation of Religions"
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing on this important and timely issue. For a number of years, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has been monitoring closely, and speaking out against, the campaign by some countries to create a global blasphemy law through the passage of UN resolutions against the so-called "defamation of religions."
While they may sound tolerant and progressive, these resolutions do not solve the very real problems of persecution and discrimination suffered by the adherents of many religions around the world. Rather, they exacerbate these problems. The "defamation of religions" concept promotes intolerance and human rights violations, creating wide latitude for governments to restrict free expression and religious freedom. In addition, the concept deviates sharply from the historically rooted object of international human rights protections by addressing the interests of religious institutions and interpretations, rather than the rights of individuals.
The "defamation of religions" resolutions have been sponsored annually by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, in the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor since 1999, and in the General Assembly since 2005. At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, these efforts have been led by Pakistan. Egypt has played a leading role at the General Assembly in New York. The OIC's publicly-stated goal is the adoption of a binding international covenant against the so-called "defamation of religions."
Although the "defamation" resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims. Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined. The resolutions also do not define what would make a statement defamatory to religions or explain who decides this question. For its part, the OIC
appears to deem any criticism of Islam or Muslims to be religiously defamatory speech—a view that goes well beyond the existing legal concept of defamation, which protects individuals against false statements of fact that damage their reputation and livelihood.
In terms of states' practices, there is no universal international approach toward "defamation of religions." The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted a survey in 2008 and found no common understanding of the concept among those countries that said they had laws on the issue. Instead, the laws surveyed addressed "somewhat different phenomena and appl[ied] various terms such as contempt, ridicule, outrage and disrespect to connote defamation."
What should we glean from this narrow focus on Islam and the ambiguity of the applicable legal standard? For the Commission, it signals that the "defamation of religions" resolutions are a poorly veiled attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level. Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations. In Pakistan, for example, the domestic law makes blasphemy against Islam a criminal offense subject to severe penalties, including death. Extremists have abused these broad provisions to intimidate members of religious minorities, including members of disfavored minority Muslim sects, and others with whom they disagree, and unscrupulous individuals have found them to be useful tools to settle personal scores. Blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, which are often false, have resulted in imprisonment on the basis of religion or belief, as well as vigilante violence resulting in the death of accused individuals.
The "defamation of religions" resolutions usually come before the UN General Assembly in the fall and the UN Human Rights Council in the spring, and they continue to pass each year in each body. Yet there is some good news to report: the international community is starting—though I would stress only starting—to understand the problems with these resolutions. The last three times they were considered the votes in favor decreased from a majority to a plurality of members. At both the March 2008 and March 2009 Human Rights Council sessions, as well as the December 2008 General Assembly, the combined number of no votes and abstentions outnumbered the yes votes, although the resolutions still passed. The Commission hopes that this trend will continue when the expected "defamation of religions" resolution comes before the General Assembly later this fall. To that end, we are working on a number of fronts, including with various Members of Congress, to encourage UN member states to oppose these resolutions. The Commission welcomed Secretary Clinton's recent remarks in New York affirming the United States' continued opposition, and we urge the State Department to continue vigorously to engage all governments to urge them to vote no.
Like any smart tactician that detects a weakening of support, the OIC is diversifying its push for banning certain forms of speech by reaching into other venues and masking its objective through other language. The OIC sought, but failed, to insert language against the "defamation of religions" in the outcome document of the April 2009 Durban Review Conference. Instead, a compromise was reached to include a phrase deploring "the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief." This is a somewhat better approach because it focuses on individuals, not religions, and does not attach legal prohibitions or punishments.
The OIC also has attempted to include the "defamation of religions" concept into UN resolutions dealing with the freedom of expression. At the most recent UN Human Rights Council session, the United States worked with Egypt to jointly sponsor a compromise freedom of expression resolution that sought to find common ground between the "defamation" proponents and opponents. Like the Durban II Conference document, this resolution does not mention "defamation of religions," but rather focuses on negative religious stereotyping, thereby rightly keeping the focus on individuals rather than belief systems. It also does not call for any laws against such stereotyping, but instead expresses concern about it.
However, many in the human rights community were surprised by the United States' co-sponsorship of this resolution because it condemned "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" and called on states to "take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations" to address such advocacy. Having just returned from Commission delegations to the European Union and Holy See, I know that many of our EU partners were equally surprised. The language on advocacy of hatred constituting incitement is taken from Article 20(2) of the International Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR. Article 20(2) also requires states to enact laws against such incitement—a requirement on which the United States has placed a reservation to the extent that doing so would violate U.S. constitutional free expression guarantees. To be sure, the U.S./Egypt resolution does not expressly call for legal prohibitions, and therefore does not run afoul of the U.S's reservation, and the U.S. previously has supported UN resolutions on religious intolerance and discrimination that condemned incitement but did not require laws against it.
But the Commission is concerned that this use of the incitement language is a Trojan Horse for the "defamation of religions" efforts. The United States and other supporters of free expression therefore must remain vigilant against attempts to conflate "defamation of religions" and Article 20(2) incitement. In addition to seeking a new anti-blasphemy norm through the "defamation" resolutions, the OIC has argued in various UN contexts that speech insulting or criticizing religions is outlawed under existing international law norms against incitement—citing ICCPR Article 20(2).
Article 20(2) has always been and should continue to be a limited exception to the fundamental individual freedoms of expression and religion meant to protect individuals from violence or discrimination, not to protect religious beliefs from criticism. The United States should recognize that the defamation proponents' efforts to redefine and significantly broaden this provision are of serious concern.
National or international laws purporting to ban criticism or "defamation" of religions are not the solution to the very real problems of religious intolerance and discrimination. In fact, such prohibitions do more harm than good, as evidenced by the human rights abuses perpetrated under them in countries such as Pakistan. The United States should continue strongly to oppose, and urge other UN members to oppose, both the "defamation of religions" resolutions and all efforts to reinterpret ICCPR Article 20(2) to encompass allegedly religiously defamatory speech.


text:
LAS VEGAS – Saratoga's Roku is here at the International CES to introduce Roku TV, the next generation of its streaming media players. The difference is instead of a stand-alone device that plugs into a TV monitor, the Roku TV embeds the platform into new TV monitors.
The first models will be made by TCL, the world's third biggest TV monitor maker, and Hisense, the fifth largest TV maker. Both companies are based in China and are not well known in the U.S., but are trying to make inroads into the domestic market.
Roku said six new models ranging in size from 32 inches to 55 inches will go on sale this fall in the U.S. and Canada, but the prices will be set later.
The company has sold more than eight million of its streaming media players, while manufacturers like Samsung have been selling smart TVs with Internet access installed for several years. And there's also the $35 Google Chromecast that streams online video from a computer, smart phone or tablet.
But Lloyd Klarke, Roku's senior director of product management, said his company wanted to make online video streaming even easier to use.
The Roku TV home screen makes different video input sources into buttons, so switching from cable box to game console to Blu-ray player becomes as easy as changing channels, Klarke said.
"We wanted to make things as fast and as straightforward as possible," he said.


text:
For almost two decades, poet/publisher Guy Bennett has been consistently producing fascinating and thoughtful experimental collections on his two chapbook presses, Mindmade Books and Seeing Eye – 77 titles to date. Formalist, searching, multilingual – it's a brilliant catalog with a clear point of view.
This Friday night brings two of its recently published authors together for a reading: Shane Anderson, from Berlin, whose Soft Passer was brought out by Mindmade in 2015, and A Maxwell, from the PRB, whose Conversion Table was just issued this month.
Shane Anderson is the author of Soft Passer (Mindmade Books) and Études des Gottnarrenmaschinen (Broken Dimanche Press). His poems and translations can be found in 6x6, Asymptote, Edit, Triple Canopy, Natalie Czech's Il Pleut series and Mathew Barney's River of Fundament (Skira Rizzoli). He lives in Berlin where he curates the reading series HERE! HERE! THERE!
Andrew Maxwell's recent books include Candor is the Brightest Shield (Ugly Duckling, 2015) and Peeping Mot (Apogee, 2013). Conversion Table, a small collection of remarks without propositional attitudes, was issued this September on Mindmade Books. In LA, he runs the Poetic Research Bureau with Joseph Mosconi, and hosts a weekly radio show of international roots music on KXLU, The Dream of Harry Lime.
Doors open @ 7:30pm, reading at 8 sharp.
Poetic Research Bureau
951 Chung King Rd.
Los Angeles, CA


text:
- This event has passed.
Arboretum Nature Photography Exhibit
July 27, 2017
8 a.m.-7:30 p.m.
Daily July 27 – September 4
Enjoy photographs taken at the Arboretum during the past year. The exhibit is located inside the Visitor Center. Included with admission.
Vote for your favorites. Pick one from each category and submit online.


text:
I am getting a message
Could not update ICEauthority file /home/me/.ICEauthority
When trying to log into Ubuntu graphically. I can log in using Ctrl+Alt+F1
This is not a duplicate of:
What does this startup dialog message mean "Could not update ICEauthority file"
In my case my .ICEauthority is
-rw------- 1 me me ...
Things I tried to do to fix this:
- reset the ICE file's permissions in case something was messed up that I did not notice.
- delete the file (no new one was created)
- touch a new file after the orig was deleted
- looks like my home directory was owned by root. fixing did not help.
- .ecryptfs has correct permissions on my home directory
- autologin is off, never was turned on
- fresh install so no password changes (i'd prefer not to re-install my os because I did spend a day setting it up)
- only weirdness found was: /home/.ecryptfs/me/.ecryptfs/wrapped-passphrase is
-rw------- 1 me root 48 .....however that should not be an issue or so it would seem due to permissions
I installed gnome after installing the system
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:gnome3-team/gnome3
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
sudo apt-get install gnome-shell
I've never booted into it (or anything else rather except for tty) successfully.


text:
Sun Microsystems has announced the official release of the Java EE 6 specification, along with Glassfish V3 (the Java EE 6 reference implementation), and NetBeans 6.8, which enables you to easily build Java EE 6 applications.
Java EE 6
This revision of Java EE is all about simplification. There are some important new additions and updates as well. The updates include Servlets 3.0, JSF 2.0, EJB 3.1, Java Persistence 2.0, Java EE Connector API updates, and more. For EJBs and persistence, look for a model more like Spring and Hibernate, with resource dependancy injection and easier configuration.
As for what's been added, the two most anticipated features are:
- Java Context and Dependancy Injections (CDI): Formerly known as "Web Beans", and always known as JSR-299, CDI takes your plain-old-Java-objects (POJOs) and enables them for scaling in your enterprise applications. Inspired by Sprint, it simplifies development and deployment, and unifies existing Java EE APIs.
- Java EE Profiles: These are subsets of Java EE (which is otherwise quite large). There are currently two profiles: a web profile which is Tomcat-like, and includes a web server with support for Servlets, JSPs, and JSF; and the full Java EE profile which includes everything. However, Java EE 6 allows you to define your own, custom, profiles. New profiles are expected to be defined through the JCP process, which will address specific application deployment patterns.
Other additions include the new Web Services and Interoperability (WSIT) features that came from the Microsoft collaboration, and many new APIs for REST-based services, and REST-based administration of your enterprise applications.
The all encompassing Java EE 6 specification can be found here. Table 1 (at the end of this article) provides a list of the individual specifications and versions that make up Java EE 6, with links to the JSRs and specifications themselves.
"Over the years the Java EE platform has grown and matured to cover a wide range of enterprise and web application needs. Java EE 6 is designed to be more lightweight and modular to help simplify development, serve more applications and address various deployment scenarios. The innovative features and productivity improvements now available in Java EE 6 are the result of an extensive, collaborative development effort between Sun, the JCP and open source community members," says Karen Tegan Padir, vice president of MySQL and Software Infrastructure at Sun. "The introduction of Java EE 6 Profiles brings new flexibility to the platform and helps to address the needs of the various communities by adding new functionality and ease of use capabilities. We expect Profiles to usher in a new era of innovation and the possibility of many exciting new products for the Java EE platform."
You can download the Java EE 6 specification and SDK here.
Glassfish v3
Glassfish is the Java EE reference implementation, but over the past few years, Sun has been successful in marketing it as a licensed, supported, production-ready application server. Using Glassfish as your enterprise's application server has multiple advantages:
- Since it's the reference implementation, it's always up to date with the latest Java EE specification release and future drafts.
- It's dual-licensed as open-source and commercial. Therefore it's freely available, and Sun offers support plans as well.
- It's integrated with Open Solaris, which is an open-source version of an OS that many enterprises depend on for their enterprise infrastructure already.
- It's fully embeddable, with APIs and interfaces specifically to make this possible and straightforward.
With Glassfish v3, Sun offers the latest Java EE 6 support with some interesting packaging. For the first time, Glassfish is based on OSGi, allowing for the dynamic addition of new functionality both from Sun and third parties. It also helps to keep the base footprint of the application server small, pulling in only the modules that are required by your application. As a result, this helps reduce both deployment and start-up time. In fact, Glassfish v3 starts up twice as fast as Glassfish v2, and over three times as fast when running the Web Profile edition.
"In addition to delivering the tremendous enhancements available in Java EE 6, Sun GlassFish Enterprise Server v3 provides features to help improve start-up time and reduce resource utilization plus fine-grained monitoring capabilities that offer improved observability for both developers and IT operators. People should think of GlassFish v3 as a pluggable runtime that can host many types of containers and enable rapid, iterative development with multiple programming languages -- allowing customers to consolidate to a single platform/runtime," said Padir went on to say. "Because Sun GlassFish Enterprise Server v3 is based on open source technology, customers have more control over their product deployments and don't have to choose between open source and enterprise features. GlassFish Enterprise Server offers transparency through the publicly available roadmap of product requirements and priorities that is strengthened by external contributions and a vibrant community."
If you haven't kept up with the progress of the Glassfish v3 prelude suite, the pre-release of the version announced today, here's a rundown. The Glassfish v3 platform will now come in different flavors, or "bundles", to make it easier to target a deployment for your application. Here is a summary:
- Glassfish Enterprise Server: Full bundle; OSGi-based; Embedded API; RESTful admin API; Lightweight and fast startup; Session retention for easier debugging.
- Glassfish Metro: Deployable subset includes XML/WS/REST/JSON stack (JAXP, JAXB, SAAJ, JAX-WS, JAX-RS, WSIT all integrated).
- Glassfish ESB: Open-source ESB with base set of adapters for core integration, built on Glassfish server for enterprise readiness.
- Glassfish Web Stack: LAMP stack on Glassfish; Fully integrated Apache HTTP/Tomcat/MySQL/PHP stack on Linux or OpenSolaris. This removes the tedious work of downloading, installing, and integrating the various components, and delivers it for you in one installation.
- Glassfish Web Space Server: Expansion of Portal Server; Includes web 2.0 features such as content collaboration, wikis, blogs, calendaring, document sharing, web content authoring and publishing, Ajax support, a library of Web UI controls, and advanced security.
Other enhancements and additions include, many community contributions, including Oracle EclipseLink for persistence, Red Hat's implementation of CDI (JSR 299) and Bean Validation (JSR 303), and the FishCAT program for bug reporting and bug fixes.
For monitoring and administration, Glassfish v3 now supports a wide-range of choices including mod_jk, an embeddable API for OEMs, REST-based administrative services, a command-line interface (CLI), and, of course, a web-based interface as well. Additionally, in terms of developer language support, Glassfish v3 supports a broad range of Java and non Java technology-based languages, including JRuby/Rails, Jython/DJango, Scala/Lift, PHP, server-side JavaScript and Groovy/Grails. In fact, you can run Jython and JRuby-based applications natively, without requiring a Java Servlet container, offering a natural developer experience with low overhead.
One development feature that I find particularly useful is Session Retention. With this, while debugging a problem in your web or enterprise application, as you make changes NetBeans and Glassfish save your session and application state so that you don't need to restore it each time you restart Glassfish. For instance, if you're debugging a problem where you must first log in, and setup a scenario that affects your session (such as performing a search, populating a shopping cart, or finalizing some transaction, for example), performing the required steps each time you compile and debug can be timeconsuming.
With Session Retention, Glassfish remembers your state throughout each of these codedebug cycles and allows you to pick up where you left off each time -- a real time saver. To learn more, and to download any of the Glassfish Portfolio products go here
NetBeans 6.8
With Java EE 6 and Glassfish v3, it makes sense that the NetBeans release now allows you to easily build full-featured Java EE 6 applications, and target Glassfish v3. This includes the Java EE 6 full profile, as well as the new web profile, which is implemented by the lightweight Glassfish v3 Web Profile edition. There's also improved support for the latest JSF 2.0/Facelets, Java Persistence 2.0, and EJB 3.1, including using EJBs in web applications and RESTful web services.
In addition to Java EE 6 support, NetBeans 6.8 adds other new features such as:
- Expanded PHP Support, including PHP 5.3 and the Symfony framework
- Tighter Integration with Project Kenai, which is a collaborative environment for hosting open-source projects. NetBeans now delivers full support for JIRA and improved instant messenger and issue tracker integration, all from within the IDE.
- Improved C/C ++ profiling with the new Microstate Accounting indicator, I/O usage monitor.
- Improved JavaFX development with improved code completion, hints, and navigation for JavaFX in the NetBeans editor.
"With this new NetBeans release, Sun continues its commitment to delivering open source developer tools," said Jim Parkinson, vice president of Developer Products and Programs at Sun. "Java EE 6 and GlassFish v3 enable developers to create enterprise applications more easily and with less code, significantly speeding application development and deployment." For the latest NetBeans information and downloads, go here.
I've been using NetBeans for years now, and it makes building, debugging, and deploying Java SE, Java EE, and Java ME applications a snap. I look forward to using all of the new features in version 6.8 -- including support for other languages -- and will blog about my experiences as they take place. Follow me at DobbsCodeTalk.com for all of my latest NetBeans and Java-related adventures, as well as on Twitter @ericjbruno.


text:
What is this project?
It is a project to install 1,050 feet of new concrete sidewalk on the west side on Green Acres Rd. from Poplar St. to College Ave.
What is the current status?
This project is upcoming.
How is this project being funded?
Funding for this project comes from the Street Fund. The Street Fund is financed through two sources:
1) Turn-back revenues from the State of Arkansas. The State collects motor fuel taxes, which are returned to the City on a per-capita basis.
2) Turn-back monies received from the County Road Millage Tax. The City receives 80% of the road millage levied by the Quorum Court on real and personal property located within the city.


text:
The scrum
The scrum is a restart of the game that takes place after a minor infringement such as a forward pass. It is a physical contest for possession and therefore, as with any contact, safety must be a prime consideration. Players, coaches and referees all have a responsibility to ensure the scrum is fair, competitive and safe. It is imperative that all players understand the correct techniques for their position and collaborate with their opponent to stay on their feet.
In the scrum, the non-offending team has the advantage of throwing the ball in, usually from the left hand side of the scrum. The defending side has the opportunity to regain possession by either trying to hook the ball on the throw-in, or by driving the attacking team back over the ball.
The scrum restarts the match and open play follows when the ball emerges from the scrum.


text:
Your cart is currently empty.
Return to shop
BVP is actively working to improve our website accessibility for those with auditory and visual impairments in conformance with the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) for web content. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), any person who believes he or she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability should file a grievance with BVP at firstname.lastname@example.com. Additionally, any person who requires access to online information that is currently inaccessible should contact BVP at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Blackstone Valley Prep Network Office
7 Fatima Drive
Cumberland, RI 02864
Get news, views and insight:
Invest for the future of our scholars and our schools.


text:
From today's Dolphins notebook in the Sun Sentinel:
New Dolphins center Jake Grove owns the dubious distinction of spending his entire career with the last two teams to share a home with a Major League Baseball team.
?Really?? Grove said. ?Lucky me.?
Grove said the infield dirt at Land Shark Stadium ?might be a little softer? than the dirt at the Oakland Coliseum, but for the most part it?s equally unpleasant.
?I guess it probably hurts both sides,? Grove said. ?That?s the way it is. You can?t worry about it. It?s dirt. What are you going to do??
Strong rain in both home preseason games complicated matters. Watching film of the opener against Jacksonville, the Dolphins? linemen got a laugh from watching reserve Brandon Frye trying to hold his block in the mud.
?Both guys were running as fast as they could,? Grove said, ?and neither one of them were going anywhere. They were pushing against each other, and their feet were just churning in place. That was interesting.?
Barring a playoff run by the Marlins, the Dolphins should have just one more game in which they have to negotiate infield dirt. That will be the Sept. 21 home opener against the Indianapolis Colts.
So, how much do you Mobsters hate that infield dirt you've had to watch your heroes slip and slide over all these years? And how much are you looking forward to 2012, when the infield dirt goes away ... forever?


text:
Read more about this artist:
Oil on canvas (24" x 20"), c.1990s
The Indigo Arts website has remained active during the widespread shutdowns due to the COVID-19 virus. We have had to limit our activities since the March 23rd "Stay at Home" order in Philadelphia. Under current rules I have been able to resume most operations but still must limit visitors to the gallery, by appointment only. I am monitoring orders and responding to inquiries. I am now able to pack and ship most orders within a few days. Please stay safe!
Oil on canvas (24" x 20"), c.1990s


text:
A "party" hosted on Purim eve was reminiscent of the party that was hosted by King Achashverosh, replete with mingling, food, live music and even a belly dancer, has drawn widespread shock and outrage – even forcing a Kashrus agency to rethink their policies for parties at venues they certify, and the venue to distance itself from the event.
by CrownHeights.info
Dubbed "Arabian Nights – Purim at the Persian Palace" the event, which took place on Purim Eve, the 28th of February, promised live entertainment, Arabian food, a hookah lounge and even a belly dancer in 'Persian' attire.
The event was organized by a number of Crown Heights and Chabad based establishments, clothing designers, hair stylists and social media personalities and was heavily promoted ahead of the event and was set to take place in Downtown Brooklyn at Bison and Bourbon, a popular restaurant and event venue.
And the party delivered all it promised, drawing vocal outrage and disgust.
Pictures on social media showed bearded men watching a scantly clad dancers, and videos showed unabashed mingling and mixed dancing, with no proper mechizta in sight. "It's so ironic," noted a social media commenter, "to hold such an event on Purim when the Jews were endangered for attending Achashverosh's party. The food back then was also glatt kosher…"
An attendee, who declined to be quoted by name, said that friends invited her to a Purim celebration with good food. "When I arrived I couldn't believe my eyes. The scene was completely lewd. I just got up and left" she said.
Photos and videos seen posted on various social media platforms by CrownHeights.info staff the night of the event have been meticulously sanitized and deleted. One angry community member alleged that "foreseeing the outrage from the Chabad community organizers instructed that attendees share photos on Instagram Story only."
Instagram story is a social media post which gets automatically deleted after a set amount of time.
Curiously, nearly all promotion posts on social media have been removed by the party's hosts and organizers.
In a statement the OK Kosher said:
"When we certify food service establishments we outline specific guidelines that must be followed, not only for the food but for a kosher atmosphere as well. Much to our dismay, we learned that our guidelines were not followed at this event. Going forward, we will review our policies and guidelines and make necessary adjustments to ensure that we can enforce our standards."
Bison and Bourbon also released a statement vehemently distancing themselves from what took place. "It is very important, and we want to make it clear that we never would have done anything to bring shame like this to our business, community or to the OK," they said in a statement. "In addition to this as soon as our staff saw this happen they stopped it from continuing. It is also important to know that we had no control of the advertising of this event and that none of the management of Bison & Bourbon took part of any decision that were made for this event."bison bourbon purim party letter
Some of the remaining posts on social media:
PURIM AT THE PALACE It's 6 nights away from the Purim party that you don't want to miss I will be Co- Hosting at the palace with some of instagrams chicest boss ladies @the_chefs_wife_ @mimulo @eishesstyle @excessoriesexpert @thefrocknyc @salonleah 🔥🔥🍷🍷🤡🤡🧕🏻🧕🏻👳🏻♂👳🏻♂ Decked out for Arabian royalty this party will transport you from the concrete jungle of NYC to the palaces of Arabia! Get ready for the middle eastern party of the year! DJ ROY BARON HOOKA LOUNGE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT HENNA TATOO ARTIST ARABIAN FOOD by chef Jose Soto 21+ VIP AVAILABLE Use My Promo Code to be eligible for my VIP discount PURIMWITHRACHELOSTROY I will also be announcing My Purim GIVEAWAY at the PALACE !!!!!!!!!!!
A post shared by Rachel.Ostroy (@rachel.ostroy) on


text:
Office of Undergraduate Admissions
120 Behrakis Health Science Center
Tel: 617.373.3320
The undergraduate nursing curriculum provides the knowledge, skills, and professional values you will need for successful practice as a nurse in the new century. The curriculum draws on basic and behavioral sciences, the arts and humanities, and the art and science of nursing to help you understand the complexities of health and illness across the life span.
Your introduction to nursing courses begins in your sophomore year. The skills and procedures you learn in the nursing courses prepare you for the clinical courses to come. You will build confidence as you put your nursing skills into practice caring for patients during academic and co-op experiences.
Options for Nurses Seeking Additional Degrees
Many of our nursing specializations are offered at the advanced level for registered nurses who wish to combine a BSN with the MS, PhD, or DNP degree.
Options for Non-Nurses with Undergraduate Degrees
For students already possessing a baccalaureate degree in a field other than nursing, the Direct Entry Nursing program offers the opportunity to become a masters-prepared nurse in the specialization of your choice. Sixteen months of nursing-specific classes (including practica) prepare students to sit for the national licensing examination (NCLEX). After passing the NCLEX and working as a registered nurse for six to nine months in a full-time cooperative experience, students continue in the masters' program.
19 Credits
18 Credits
17 Credits
9 Credits
Curriculum subject to change
The co-op periods are 6 months in length. Spring/Summer I co-op schedule is from January to June and the Summer II/Fall co-op schedule is from July to December. This is the same co-op schedule that most undergraduate programs in the university follow.
The undergraduate nursing program is, either, 4 years with 2, six month co-ops or 5 years with 3, six month co-ops. Students have the option to select either program.
Students have until September 1st of the third year of study to make the decision regarding whether they will graduate in 4 or 5 years. Students also have the option to make that decision earlier in the program, if they would prefer.
Yes, all nursing students take the same courses, regardless of which option they select. Students who complete the 4 year option may need to either use advanced placement credit or take courses on co-op to complete credit requirements for some electives.
If the student lives in a residence hall and accepts a local position, then he or she may continue living in the residence hall. If the student accepts a position outside the Boston area, the housing deposit can be transferred to another semester.
Yes, nursing students will have access to international co-op opportunities and Dialogues of Civilization programs, as do all students in the university.
Transfer students are required to have earned a minimum of 12 semester hours of transferable credits appropriate to the curriculum. To be accepted into the program, transfer students must also have an overall QPA of 3.0 and have successfully completed the following courses: Anatomy and Physiology I and II (with lab), Chemistry I (with lab), English I, College Algebra, and Psychology; Microbiology is recommended. Additional non-nursing courses applicable to the curriculum may be transferred into the school.
The School of Nursing has over 40 years' experience providing cooperative education for nursing students. Beginning in your second year, you will alternate semesters of academic study and semesters of paid employment. You may work in some of the best teaching medical centers in the nation as well as in community hospitals, visiting nurse associations, and neighborhood health centers.
Through the Honors Program, undergraduate students interested in research can work directly with a faculty member. Graduate students can work as research assistants and complete required course assignments through participation in research studies.


text:
My part is short. I am starting this topic here because I would like to see a thoroughgoing critique of all aspects of the ballot access initiatives of third party candidates. I am particularly concerned about the failures of the Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party to obtain 50 state ballot access.
It seems to me that libertarians knew going in what states were tough. And not enough was done. But I am not the expert. Paulie and his associates are.
There were failures not only in effect, but in practice. I think there was an ethical failure that Angela O'Dell didn't get paid for her petition work in West Virginia by the Barr campaign.
There were a number of other failures in regard to petition gathering, ballot access project management, and I'd like to look at all of those failures.
Why? If we learn from the past, while it is fresh in our minds, we can plan better for the future. I'd like to see it.